4 ms·

Replace linguistics with neuroscience (or more generally biology) and language with the brain (or more generally the body). Does your conclusion change? What do

by robg 17y ago

Replace linguistics with neuroscience (or more generally biology) and language with the brain (or more generally the body). Does your conclusion change? What does learning mean if we understand the biological processes that underlie it?

gloob 17y ago
What does learning mean if we understand the biological processes that underlie it? The same thing it has always meant? It's not like understanding addition grants us some brilliant revelation that changes the "meaning" of multiplication. I fail to understand why the meaning of learning would suddenly change because we understood how it worked. (Side note: I'm not entirely certain about how you're using the word "meaning" here; are we talking about "meaning" as in "definition of", or "meaning" as in "metaphysical significance or purpose", or something else entirely? Eh, in either of the first two cases at least, my opinion's the same.)
- robg 17y ago
  If you could learn 2x as fast while showing how your latent biases arise from structure?
btilly 17y ago
I am puzzled why you would think that my conclusion would change. You've fallen into a classic mistake. Science focuses on tractable problems, not important ones. For instance no matter how wonderful world peace would be, as long as there is no clarity about what lines of research are likely to advance it, it simply can't be science. By comparison human happiness is unlikely to change if we find the last particle predicted by the Standard Model. However we know how to go about finding the Higgs boson, its discovery would confirm our understanding of how mass arises, and understanding it could help us towards reconciling GR and QM. I fully grant the importance of understanding the human brain. I appreciate the effort that is being spent, and that lots of progress is being made. I've learned a lot by reading about what we have learned. However there is no coherent story yet, and no sense of which lines of research are likely to lead to fundamental improvements in understanding. As a result neuroscientists have less of a shared paradigm than the hard sciences. Incidentally your comment below about learning is ironic. Researchers into memory learned a lot about how timely reminders improve long-term learning ages ago. They have been trying to shout the news from the rooftops for decades. There are computer programs that help people follow schedules that really improve how you learn. But has it had a practical impact on, say, classroom teaching?
- Tamerlin 17y ago
  "Science focuses on tractable problems, not important ones." That doesn't make sense. Science isn't an entity for one thing, it can't focus on anything... for another, do you really think that mechanics, immunology, electricity, and ceramics, to pick a few examples, aren't important? The reality is that scientists aim to solve tractable problems because they know that they can't solve the whole thing at once. It's part of a simple algorithm called "divide and conquer."

by robg 17y ago

gloob 17y ago

What does learning mean if we understand the biological processes that underlie it? The same thing it has always meant? It's not like understanding addition grants us some brilliant revelation that changes the "meaning" of multiplication. I fail to understand why the meaning of learning would suddenly change because we understood how it worked. (Side note: I'm not entirely certain about how you're using the word "meaning" here; are we talking about "meaning" as in "definition of", or "meaning" as in "metaphysical significance or purpose", or something else entirely? Eh, in either of the first two cases at least, my opinion's the same.)

robg 17y ago
If you could learn 2x as fast while showing how your latent biases arise from structure?

btilly 17y ago

I am puzzled why you would think that my conclusion would change. You've fallen into a classic mistake. Science focuses on tractable problems, not important ones. For instance no matter how wonderful world peace would be, as long as there is no clarity about what lines of research are likely to advance it, it simply can't be science. By comparison human happiness is unlikely to change if we find the last particle predicted by the Standard Model. However we know how to go about finding the Higgs boson, its discovery would confirm our understanding of how mass arises, and understanding it could help us towards reconciling GR and QM. I fully grant the importance of understanding the human brain. I appreciate the effort that is being spent, and that lots of progress is being made. I've learned a lot by reading about what we have learned. However there is no coherent story yet, and no sense of which lines of research are likely to lead to fundamental improvements in understanding. As a result neuroscientists have less of a shared paradigm than the hard sciences. Incidentally your comment below about learning is ironic. Researchers into memory learned a lot about how timely reminders improve long-term learning ages ago. They have been trying to shout the news from the rooftops for decades. There are computer programs that help people follow schedules that really improve how you learn. But has it had a practical impact on, say, classroom teaching?

Tamerlin 17y ago
"Science focuses on tractable problems, not important ones." That doesn't make sense. Science isn't an entity for one thing, it can't focus on anything... for another, do you really think that mechanics, immunology, electricity, and ceramics, to pick a few examples, aren't important? The reality is that scientists aim to solve tractable problems because they know that they can't solve the whole thing at once. It's part of a simple algorithm called "divide and conquer."